But what if the entire story and point of the article is... they can't do their job right now? Is it not worth knowing that the fraking wastewater isn't being treated at these places?
I would -love- if this was because of SimCity, but this entire summary is pretty suspect. It smells really bad of wanting to push forward the idea that "Simcity is a failure, and with it, takes EA".
Like I said, I'd love if this was true - but there are many other reason for the CEO to step down outside of SC5. Not saying the whole mess didn't help him/the board finalize on the decision - but lets not turn into Kotaku levels of terrible summaries here.
So what happens if my car runs over something I cannot see and blows a tire? Are all unexpected car disasters 100% avoidable and able to be reacted to at highway speeds?
I agree that if we would pay attention to the roads instead of OnStar/Phone/Radio then we'd have less accidents but putting such a blanket statement out there and then saying "game. set. match." just sounds like you've put the minimal thought into this argument possible.
If the other drivers are awake, and the guy doing 25 isn't also swerving from lane to lane then it's pretty easy to dodge this person on the highway. Just like it would be pretty easy to doge any car-sized obstacle you can clearly see a half-mile away.
Game critics cannot give a functionally decent game less than an 8. I'm sure SimCity 5 works fine, but it's just designed terribly. If this wasn't a game from EA I'm sure it would get some pretty bad scores. But alas, if they give an EA game bad scores - then next time the review site would have to wait until after launch to get the game to review; and waiting until after launch means they miss out on all those glorious ad dollars.
Windows store is scary because of how -bad- it is, and how long it takes for Microsoft to make a product worth using. Go look at the Win8 store and try not let the feelings of browsing the Android store during it's first week seep in. Except multiply the cost of everything by a fun number.
While some might be less egregious than others, relying on the comments from PHP's documentation is nearly the textbook definition of the blind leading the blind.
The grand majority of atheist traditions have a tendency to start with the assumption that people in the past were all idiots and had nothing worthwhile to say at all.
This is an unfortunate assumption you're making. It's BECAUSE of great pioneers of the scientific method (invented back when people still believed lightning was something akin to the gods partying) that I know that your "2000 years of observable evidence" isn't... observable.
The only thing Google should do about this is ignore it. I would rather have a user base of smart rational individuals any day, so let Microsoft bleed the crazies away from Google.
You rather have the smart individuals, and even though I still somewhat trust Google, I also realize they want every slack-jawed idiot they can find. As does every company. A pair of eyeballs pays the same regardless of the IQ behind them.
Coke doesn't want to sell me plastic and glass bottles, they want to sell me sugar water. The bottles are just a cost of doing business.
I agree with your sentiment but you've phrased it in a way that makes any business/consume relationship seem inherently shady.
This is the crux of the debate, why are you making this assumption with little to no falsifiable data to back it up? Why would you assume the reader will make this assumption?
But how does that fit into my story that Google drove all the way to my house just to steal my password for my xbox live account? If they just accidentally picked up the information because I don't know how WiFi works then why am I to blame? Am I excepted to be responsible for all my actions?! WHY IS THIS ALL SO HARD?!?!
Do the algorithms understand meaning? When I type the phrase, "Not the brightest bulb in the box." will I see ads for schools or lightbulbs?
If string matching is reading then a wordsearch might as well be reverse cryptography.
While I agree and high-five your sentiment, you've completely missed the point, and so at the last second I will pull my hand away and run it through my hands ultra-slick like.
Proving, yes. I always end up putting my foot in my mouth when discussing theory/hypothesis. And yes, cognitive dissonance kicks in pretty fast and hard in times like this. What really stinks is there still isn't much way of getting around that.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if the entire story and point of the article is... they can't do their job right now? Is it not worth knowing that the fraking wastewater isn't being treated at these places?
I would -love- if this was because of SimCity, but this entire summary is pretty suspect. It smells really bad of wanting to push forward the idea that "Simcity is a failure, and with it, takes EA".
Like I said, I'd love if this was true - but there are many other reason for the CEO to step down outside of SC5. Not saying the whole mess didn't help him/the board finalize on the decision - but lets not turn into Kotaku levels of terrible summaries here.
What next, drones to see if I'm spitting on the sidewalk?
I am not surprised an AC would be disgusting enough to spit on the sidewalk.
While it's kind of crazy to think: the article actually answers this question! :-D
So what happens if my car runs over something I cannot see and blows a tire? Are all unexpected car disasters 100% avoidable and able to be reacted to at highway speeds?
I agree that if we would pay attention to the roads instead of OnStar/Phone/Radio then we'd have less accidents but putting such a blanket statement out there and then saying "game. set. match." just sounds like you've put the minimal thought into this argument possible.
Game. Set. Match.
(there is a resurgence in certain ubran cities of places that have no parking, because nobody in the city needs the car)
(( then again you probably knew this, being well informed and calling things "crappy" and all ))
Are you so angry because you don't have an account? They're free you know!
We... the people?
If the other drivers are awake, and the guy doing 25 isn't also swerving from lane to lane then it's pretty easy to dodge this person on the highway. Just like it would be pretty easy to doge any car-sized obstacle you can clearly see a half-mile away.
Do you hurt your loved ones when giving them hugs?
Y'know, being this edgy and all?
Game critics cannot give a functionally decent game less than an 8. I'm sure SimCity 5 works fine, but it's just designed terribly. If this wasn't a game from EA I'm sure it would get some pretty bad scores. But alas, if they give an EA game bad scores - then next time the review site would have to wait until after launch to get the game to review; and waiting until after launch means they miss out on all those glorious ad dollars.
It really is just a shitty system.
Windows store is scary because of how -bad- it is, and how long it takes for Microsoft to make a product worth using. Go look at the Win8 store and try not let the feelings of browsing the Android store during it's first week seep in. Except multiply the cost of everything by a fun number.
While some might be less egregious than others, relying on the comments from PHP's documentation is nearly the textbook definition of the blind leading the blind.
As fun of a piece of media/writing it is, having 51% of the company doesn't mean you control the company.
I'm not worried about you guys.
I'm worried about who writes your checks and the implications that holds.
The grand majority of atheist traditions have a tendency to start with the assumption that people in the past were all idiots and had nothing worthwhile to say at all.
This is an unfortunate assumption you're making. It's BECAUSE of great pioneers of the scientific method (invented back when people still believed lightning was something akin to the gods partying) that I know that your "2000 years of observable evidence" isn't... observable.
The only thing Google should do about this is ignore it. I would rather have a user base of smart rational individuals any day, so let Microsoft bleed the crazies away from Google.
You rather have the smart individuals, and even though I still somewhat trust Google, I also realize they want every slack-jawed idiot they can find. As does every company. A pair of eyeballs pays the same regardless of the IQ behind them.
That's the whole privacy-concerns-flavored cherry on top.
Do you honestly think they are just pulling email #Random.Next() and not some huge truth-set batch of vetted, ok-to-use emails?
Coke doesn't want to sell me plastic and glass bottles, they want to sell me sugar water. The bottles are just a cost of doing business.
I agree with your sentiment but you've phrased it in a way that makes any business/consume relationship seem inherently shady.
Assuming the Catholic theology is correct
This is the crux of the debate, why are you making this assumption with little to no falsifiable data to back it up? Why would you assume the reader will make this assumption?
But how does that fit into my story that Google drove all the way to my house just to steal my password for my xbox live account? If they just accidentally picked up the information because I don't know how WiFi works then why am I to blame? Am I excepted to be responsible for all my actions?! WHY IS THIS ALL SO HARD?!?!
Do the algorithms understand meaning? When I type the phrase, "Not the brightest bulb in the box." will I see ads for schools or lightbulbs?
If string matching is reading then a wordsearch might as well be reverse cryptography.
While I agree and high-five your sentiment, you've completely missed the point, and so at the last second I will pull my hand away and run it through my hands ultra-slick like.
Proving, yes. I always end up putting my foot in my mouth when discussing theory/hypothesis. And yes, cognitive dissonance kicks in pretty fast and hard in times like this. What really stinks is there still isn't much way of getting around that.